Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Ricardino

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi all, been a while since I've been on the site but its still as informative as ever! A friend of mine has been issued with a claim form from the above beautiful people for an outstanding (MBNA) debt. I've done a CPR 31.14 and they've (verbally) informed me they won't be able to comply before the Acknowledgement of Service is due. Against my advice he went to a Claims company for the PPI reclaim but there are a lot of late charge/over limit fees which may or may not have been reclaimed, no one seems willing to affirm or deny this. Would it be acceptable to admit only part of th
  2. Yes That's correct, many judges will accept reconstituted agreements if there is clear evidence of use such as statements etc. I've even had an incorrect copy (wrong % minimum payment) argued as de minimus by their brief and cos it was a summary judgement hearing they had an opportunity to change the document before trial. From experience MBNA don't back down easily...
  3. Hi Smoothound I wouldn't worry too much about the DN especially if it comes from Mercers as its defective. Standard mo from BC, bet there'll be a few other DCA's along the way. Ric
  4. Hi Steve, a word of advice from someone in an identical position. My PPI was sold through Crystal Windows, via CGU (now Aviva), who were not signed up to the code of conduct as its pre 2005. FOS have had the claim for over 18 months and keep reiterating this in each regular update so I hold little hope of them resolving the issue, ever. Link bought the debt and equally keep reminding me of my indebtedness to them. Just thought you should be aware, especially if you're considering the FOS route and moreover the fact that Zenith are in administration. As dx has stated your best
  5. Not really If the CCA they sent is a recon they could have got the wrong interest rate meaning its not a true copy. I'd do a SAR right away as even if they only supply six years worth there could be errors in there somewhere. I went back to 1998 (have all my statements) and they didn't argue the PPI or the overlimit & late fees just the contractual interest. Ric
  6. Hi toxic Just a few pointers to help from my experience with MBNA and court proceedings They placed a compliant DN in the bundle and stated the defective one (full balance) was a later issue implying I lied about which copy was sent first. Their usual MO is to apply for summary judgement and rack up costs (4-5k) to scare you off. They will try and settle 3 days before the trial date. They may have made an assignment but failed to inform and will submit as with the DN above . IMHO this could be a testing ground to see what your defence is and then edit documents before any he
  7. Hi Mister M Congratulations on your success! I have a case going through with the FOS and am seriously confused with what they have stated with regard to being put In the position had the PPI not been sold so am keen to hear what the offer from BC will result in. I have declined the offer made by the bank because it won't repay the over limit fees incurred as a result of the PPI. Perhaps someone can offer more clarity on this point before I start a new thread but according to the FOS they won't address the issue of charges except by a separate case. Why is this? Does the law
  8. Hi Kara I wish you luck cos you gonna need it! When did the loan begin as prior to 2005 ppi wasn't regulated so claiming is more complex as previously stated If you're reading this ims can you offer any further clarity with s56 cca1974 ? If the original creditor was replaced (from FNB to GE Money) during the term would s56 still apply given that any agent was acting on behalf of FNB or having aquired the rights and liabilities do GE become as liable? I know the FOS don't see it that way but wandered if there was case law to back it up Keep us posted Ric
  9. Hi Angry, if you bought it on credit you have the right to seek redress from the creditor if that helps! Ric
  10. Hi Kara, I had exactly the same response from GE. The complaint was sent to the FOS who are still looking into it but a conversation with them suggests that there needs to be a link between the underwriters and the broker who sold you the PPI. I'd also look closely at the underwriters info as although Cardiff Pinnacle may have administrated the insurance (as was mine) but it was CGU (Norwich Union/Avila) who underwrite the nsurance. Will keep an eye on your thread Ric
  11. Hi Madge, Been to court with MBNA and wish you the best of luck. Mine was a PPI set off but included all the charges (overlimit and late fees) dating back to 1998, which they agreed to but I think only to show good favour with the court. This meant they could argue the contractual interest on the PPI but the DJ wasn't having it, mainly because I prepped a 600 page bundle in response to their 300 pages. They usually send a local barrister so I would focus on the fact that they have already paid you some compensation and therefore admitted liabilty. With the
  12. Hi missy, don't forget that you can also claim back any late payment or over limit fees plus contractual interest during the period when PPI was being applied to the account Ric
  13. Not entirely sure Pru as you have two trains of thought going here. I think you should get back what you are owed so if the PPI & interest covers the claim then the other charges could be a seperate claim (which puts you in credit) but I would check with the legal guys. Even if you turn up in court and the judge says, "well they paid you the PPI back and you deposited the money. The refund stated it was a full and final settlement." You then have to argue the refund was insufficient (as I did) and then show (by evidence) that the premiums and interest anount to much more then the
  14. Hi Pru I think Andy has hit the nail on the head here. You want to keep the counter claim in line with their claim so as to create a set off defence, i.e. whatever they are claiming can be eradicated by the unlawful charges plus interest. If you use their contractual rate to get the interest figures on the PPI/Fees it will be alot easier than arguing Sempa Metals precedent, especially as they have paid you some of the interest (but not all) and then hit them for all the late and overlimit fees together with interest at their contractual rate as this is in line with OFT guidance.
  • Create New...